United States v. Saldana-Mendoza
This text of 2 F. App'x 804 (United States v. Saldana-Mendoza) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM2
Jesus Saldana-Mendoza appeals his 57-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for being an alien found in the United States following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Saldana-Mendoza contends that his 57-month sentence was imposed in violation of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), because the district court enhanced his sentence based on prior convictions for aggravated felonies which were not charged in the indictment or proven beyond a reasonable doubt, nor did Saldana-Mendoza admit the fact of his prior felony convictions. We review the question of whether Apprendi requires that Saldana-Mendoza be resentenced for plain error. See United States v. Nordby, 225 F.3d 1053, 1060 (9th Cir .2000).
Saldana-Mendoza’s contention is foreclosed by our ruling in United States v. Packeco-Zepeda, 234 F.3d 411, 413 (9th Cir.2000) (holding that under AlmendarezTorres, recidivism increasing the maximum penalty need not be charged in the indictment, submitted to a jury or proved beyond a reasonable doubt).
AFFIRMED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2 F. App'x 804, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-saldana-mendoza-ca9-2001.